How about an "Alpha-Beta"?

[Tokay Gris]

I do of course realize this game is still Alpha...

And I do realize that the updates we get are also Alpha.

And of course, the developers (great job, btw!) want to get each update out as flawless as possible.

Reading this thread here gave me an idea I would like to suggest. Just suggest, of course. Seems reasonable to me, but maybe I am wrong.

In this thread there was a mention of testing the updates before letting them out.

Would it be an idea do get a kind of Beta out on the update?

Let the testing of an update be done by the user base? Let US do it, so to speak?

This has a history of course. In most open source projects (this is not open source, don't get me wrong here!) there is a "stable" version and a "development" version.

So the users test the "still-in-development" version.

This way, there are far more eyes to actually test, to find errors, to let the developers know where errors might be.

Of course, not all users would do this, I guess. The majority would probably do the "stable" version.

But some (like me) would like to help. Would like to test the stuff. See what errors (in gameplay) I can dig up. This way, you'd have a lot more eyes to find problems.

Probably you could implement some way of "guarantied breaking of saves"? I have no idea if this is possible, but it would be an idea.

Just an idea. It would make use of the vast and enthusiastic community, the way I see it.

But of course I do not have the whole picture here. You probably have good reasons not to do this. Nothing comes to my mind, but that - of course - is your business.

Or maybe you are already doing something like this.

I think it would just be fun to help make this game better. And what I can do to help (by donating time to testing), I would do.

[Force21]

I would love to help test new versions and find bugs! Also to be able to choose between the latest "beta" version and the stable version is great for everyone. I really hope the devs find a way to do this!

[UbioZur]

Technically speaking as alpha gamer we are the last testers for each updates. So by playing the game, reporting the bugs following the guideline, and sharing what you do ingame, you are helping Squad to find bug, and show different way to play the game.

Now from time to time, Squad is looking at some experimental tester, mainly it is to test the future update on several different equipment before the release. At the moment it's close, but if you follow the KSP Weekly and the Announcements forum, you may catch thread like that one when it's still open.

Or you could try to be as lucky as the youtuber danny and always find very strange bugs in game and be able to repeat them, and make everyone laugh exploiting it in a video!

[Tokay Gris]

Technically speaking as alpha gamer we are the last testers for each updates.

I know that.

I was referring to the KSP Weekly here.

By doing a kind of "Alpha-Beta", there would be no need whatsoever to mind stability at all.

Just throw it out once it barely works and let us test it. That is the idea.

I mean, we already bought it. We like it. We LOVE it.

And I bet there are quite a few people that already bought the game that actually would LIKE to try an unstable version to find bugs.

Now from time to time, Squad is looking at some experimental tester, mainly it is to test the future update on several different equipment before the release.

I am just suggesting that Squad could use US.

The way I see it at the moment Squad is getting out updates that pay mind to "stable". Which is not a bad thing. We payed for it, so in a way we expect it to work. Within the boundaries of "Alpha".

But I would not mind donating time testing unstable versions. This is why I suggested getting a "stable Alpha" out (like it is now) and getting a "to-be-tested Alpha-Beta" out.

It shouldn't be a problem. It must be there somewhere. If the Squad-team donates a whole week to test the update, they must have it.

So why not get it out? Put "Use at own risk" in big letters up front. Pay no mind to stability. Pay no mind to bugs. Put it out. Let US find the bugs.

It's not like we want to get payed.

You see? We are here. Some of us would LOVE to try it. If we do some big shot mission and it breaks up because of a bug, we have nobody to blame. And we wouldn't blame anyone. We COULDN'T!

So why not USE us?

I am not asking that this should be made possible. I am offering. If the Squad-team doesn't want to do this, it is of course their decision. This game is their baby, so to speak. So they can develop it the way they want.

But I am still thinking it would be a good idea to use us: unpaid, eager to test, no thanks required...

And if someone actually complains: You can say easily: "We told you so"...

;-)

[Tokay Gris]

Now from time to time, Squad is looking at some experimental tester, mainly it is to test the future update on several different equipment before the release. At the moment it's close, but if you follow the KSP Weekly and the Announcements forum, you may catch thread like that one when it's still open.

But why limit it to applicants?

The way I see it, this is a way of having a vast resource of eyes and computers of all kinds and colors, all eager to donate time at no cost and not using it.

Maybe I am wrong here, but it seems to me like refusing a free lunch.

[NoMrBond]

I'm sure Ted the QA guy talked about this; there would be something like 3+ releases a day which would be all but unplayable most of the time and/or outdated by the time people finished downloading the builds.

It'd would take a huge amount of bandwidth to support, and the bugs being reported could have been fixed before people finished downloading the builds where the bugs existed.

[Tokay Gris]

I'm sure Ted the QA guy talked about this; there would be something like 3+ releases a day which would be all but unplayable most of the time and/or outdated by the time people finished downloading the builds.

It'd would take a huge amount of bandwidth to support, and the bugs being reported could have been fixed before people finished downloading the builds where the bugs existed.

But would this matter?

The bandwith is not that big a problem. In this time and age that is merely a logistic problem. And not an unsolvable one.

You don't even need to up the download capacity. If it doesn't work, so what? You can't download it? Well? There are no promises anyway.

So it doesn't work. And? You would lose nothing.

You can only benefit. You can't loose.

And it doesn't need 3 updates a day. Just put the version out that is the "working model" at the end of the week.

No editing, no stability, no nothing. If it doesn't work, wait till next week.

No rush, no pressure. You don't need to get it stable. implement into the version you have what is ready at that time (what code is finished at that time), put it up for download (say each Friday, 12:00) and leave it.

Check a special subforum after the weekend, see what bugs crept up.

That is the beauty of my idea (I think): It doesn't cost anything. No guarantees on the "Alpha-Beta". You downloaded something that doesn't work at all? Well, so be it. Must be a major flaw then.

This way, you have the weekend without worries. And on monday, you can see what bugs crept up.

You see? No costs, no negative points that I can see (besides getting a bunch of posts about errors you have to read... but you didn't have to look for them yourself, so thats not really negative)

The way I see it:

-> No negative points. You don't even loose revenue! We already payed.

-> Possible positive points. If they don't work out at all, there is nothing lost.

I think they would work. We know this stuff from the open source community. This is of course not open source. But why not USE this method?

This way, you could botch together a kind of asteroid field using the simplest methods there are. Just put a punch of debris in a gigantic orbit between Duna and Jool.

Then, put it out.

All replies are: "Cracks the physics engine, memory outage even on the most advanced engines".

Reaction: "Thought so. But now I know."

You see? It doesn't COST anything. A tiny amount of work. Maybe a little more bandwidth.

You don't even need to think about "customers". Because the guys testing this "Alpha-Betas" AREN'T customers. What we payed for is the "stable Alpha" in a way. Which is kind of funny by the way. ;-)

But for this "Alpha-Beta" you don't NEED customers. You don't NEED to market it. If nobody does test it, what is there to loose? You are right where you started.

But IF there are testers. Voluntarily testing a product they already payed for. Finding bugs. HELPING to find bugs. At no cost. (Besides bandwidth, which in the year 2013 is - pardon my french - damn cheap)

So, you have nothing to loose. You can only gain.

Maybe I am wrong here. Maybe I talked myself into a frenzy.

But If I had such a community and could get them to work for free (BETTER: We PAYED!) I would jump at it.

[KasperVld]

Each update goes through a few processes before it is released:

• Development & QA
  These are simultanious. The QA team is comprised of highly capable members who hunt down all sorts of bugs. The QA testing happens alongside development to streamline the process. For more information I refer you to the developer blog Ted wrote a while back.
  
• Experimentals
  The experimental builds are passed onto a team of players (the experimental team) who get to play around with it for a week or so, revealing bugs on a wider variety of systems. The devs fix the most important bugs and when the build is stable enough it is released to all players

We do look for new members on the Experimental team every now and then. Everyone has to go through a selection process to prove they can write concise bug reports and narrow problems down. Opening the experimental stages to all players would only lead to complete chaos as far as bug reports go, so this is not a viable option.

[Zeroignite]

FWIW, for a while Squad was doing public experimental releases, and the end-result was a lot of broken missions and moaning about bugs without solid bug reporting. They tried open-access testing and it didn't work so well.

[Tokay Gris]

Opening the experimental stages to all players would only lead to complete chaos as far as bug reports go, so this is not a viable option.

Well, it was an idea.

I still think it would work, tough.

The point about bug reports being useful is valid, I must say. I still think that a wider base of these bug reports would be better.

But - please don't get me wrong here - it was just a suggestion that I thought (still think) is of use.

I THINK it would work. But I am not the one taking risks here. That's you guys. So you must decide.

That said: I think you are doing a great job. Please view my suggestion as what it was: a suggestion.

[Tokay Gris]

FWIW, for a while Squad was doing public experimental releases, and the end-result was a lot of broken missions and moaning about bugs without solid bug reporting. They tried open-access testing and it didn't work so well.

I didn't know that.

Oh well. It was an idea.

It seems it was tested and found to be not so good.

Sorry. I thought I had a good idea. Will let you know when I think I have another one, though. Maybe someday I come up with something that IS useful.

[Ted]

Well, this is an often-made suggestion and it's not really answered that much, other than in a couple of blog posts I've made.

Basically, it's an excellent idea and would be very beneficial to all involved, in theory. In practice, it isn't that simple and doesn't work out as well as predicted. Previously, pre-0.14, this was offered - people could download early release versions of KSP and play them, after which they'd hopefully report bugs. This, unfortunately, did not go that well and resulted in a lot of issues with the Forums being an unreliable source of useful Bug Reports due to a high noise-to-signal ratio.

Now, whilst things have changed a lot since then - we've gotten a Bug Tracker and our Community has grown astronomically - I don't feel that the core issue is fixed by either of those changes. For me, the core issue is that we simply aren't in a place in development where pre-releases would be of a benefit to the player or to us.

During the Experimental phase we do large amounts of minor bug fixes, some severe bug fixes and a lot of tweaking. These are cycles that require very specific, dedicated and precise feedback from the Testers and that's something that is best done with small Teams.

Something else that's worth noting is that you mentioned how the quantity of players downloaded the pre-release, potentially buggy, builds would be pretty low. In my opinion, it would actually be the complete opposite. If you'd just heard that your, hopefully, favourite game has a new, but potentially broken, version out then you would probably download it as soon as you can. Thus, we would have a lot of people downloading the builds and then proceeding to be disappointed that areas of it were unrefined and/or broken. Unfortunately, a notable percentage of those that dl'd it and had issues would take to the Forums/Community and express their disappointment and dissatisfaction in a less-than-desirable manner - something that no-one would benefit from.

Finally, the number of builds that we go through during Testing is pretty high - at times it's almost several a day - and as NoMrBond said very well, that would strain our servers immensely if we had thousands of people downloading them every hour. As has been mentioned in previous responses, we still do use the public as guinea pigs testers, just in a more informal sense and in the manner of further testing a well-tested and playable update.

Overall, it's not something that I have ruled out completely, but it's something that I won't be considering, or planning for, in the near future or during this current phase of development.

[Tokay Gris]

Overall, it's not something that I have ruled out completely, but it's something that I won't be considering, or planning for, in the near future or during this current phase of development.

Thanks for the reply.

Like I said, it was an idea. One that is not so new and as untested as I thought.

I think it has its uses, but I am no longer sure that it is useful in this instance, namely KSP.

Hell, to put it bluntly: I had an idea, I suggested it, you explained why it does not work the way I thought (in this instance).

Can I withdraw the suggestion? ;-)

I stand corrected. Keep up the good work and get us some new stuff to explore! I am not finished yet with the stuff there is, though, but am working on it....

[Ted]

No worries, it's great to see the suggestions the Community has and it's one that hasn't cropped up recently, in such a well thought out and rationally-put manner. So I thought it deserved a response for sure, especially as not everyone was around for the past events of open access.